Why are people with sub 140 IQ's allowed to study science?

Don't bully me just because I'm dumb!
We just like to appreciate science, user, let us alone.

i have a 160 iq and i'm not particularly good at science

i've got 142 IQ (school tested)

do you really see smart people bragging about their IQ?

My IQ is in the mid 90's and I am studying a masters in maths and computer science at Imperial College London

because academia is 95% politics, not science. An autist is not going to survive going up for tenure because he/she cant into social skills which are essential for those positions. Also, at that level IQ literally doesnt matter. Everyone has their shit down when it comes to their field. They wouldnt be a professor if that wasnt the case.

>Why are people with sub 140 IQ's allowed to study science?
why are people with sub 160 IQ's allowed to study science?

Because having a high IQ doesn't mean, the person would be interested in science.
Motivation is a main point here.
That's also the reason why there are so few women in science.
IQ tests don't really measure intelligence or at least not to it's full extent.
Also the difference between the dumbest and the most intelligent human is not that big.
And let's not forget Psychologists came up with those IQ tests, so this practically makes them nonsense.

no

including you

>IQ

How do we petition mods? How can we get the mods to insta ban anyone that posts an IQ thread?

>inb4 low IQ brainlet (nope, I'm not)

...

what is your IQ then?

Because IQ doesn't measure intelligence.

Well Bill Gates has >150 IQ and he's bad at science(Or academics for that matter)
Feynman has ~126 IQ and he's beeter than (You) and Bill Gates on sceince

Collaborative and Repectful Research by 40-60% of population(100-125)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Collaborative but Egoistical research of 10% of population(>140)

wait until the 10% create strong AI :^)

lmao

IQ doesn't measure how much you know or whether or not you would be good at science or philosophy.

It's debatable whether or not it actually measures intelligence at all, as it is supposed to measure your ability to learn.

This doesn't mean that someone with a 180 IQ will learn more than someone with a 140 IQ. It simply means that it is easier for the 180 to learn new things than it is for the 140.

The lower the number, the harder one has to work to learn. So if one were to believe the 'superiority fallacy' like the OP does, then someone with a lower than average IQ who manages to be as respected a scientist as someone with a higher than average IQ is greater than or equal to the scientist with the higher IQ when one takes the variable of effort into account.

Who tested them? Liberals like Gates are infamous for taking a few easy IQ tests and then promoting their best score.

>liberals
/pol/ go back to your containment board, aren't you too busy stroking Trump's cock over his self-proclaimed high IQ?

>liberals
>/sci
You must be new here.

>implying 10% will create meme ai
What part of c collaborative research didn't you understand?

The subject isn't that, even of he's lying, still Mensa has plenty of collage dropouts in their high iq list.
While there are many people in scientific fields with avg iq and contributing more than those neets and (You)

L-l-liberals guise

>Judging people's potential based on their ability to place shapes.

Why? That's as stupid as only giving rich people access to academia.

Not answers to my question. And four in a row? You guys should work out a system where only one of you replies to each post.

>implying IQ is something static and innate about a person, and doesn't change over time

>implying every important scientists in history had an "IQ over 140"

>take an 'adult-standardised' IQ test and get 145 at age 14
>no way I could do that now
p-peaked too soon

>Implying that being top of the class means that you are doing well

What's your contribution though?

you seem to misunderstand the concept of this board, no one is here to answer your questions. this is a discussion thread and we treat it as such, try yahoo answers.

Better question is why is anyone with sub 100 iq even allowed to live? Why is there even special education? Why aren't "people" incapable of performing relatively in school or some trade not instantly killed off? What's the point of keeping them alive? All it does is hinder the human race from advancing.

If it was up to me, all first world countries would have minimum requirements on intelligence and physical health to be allowed to live there. And I would be pushing eugenics like no tomorrow

That's precisely why it isn't up to you.

Do you really need people with 100+ IQs doing janitorial work? They fulfill a niche of some sort so they're allowed to live. Even NEETs are kept around for some reason, even if it's just to make others feel good about themselves.

So much bait

>not answers to my questions
Classic copout

>Not answers to my questions
>work out a system

Yep. You're new here.

Well my IQ is 83 (supposodly) yet there I am today accepted in to universety so there you have it

because they can perform 100s of menial experiments and report their most important findings to their superiors

I can tell...

>implying IQ is worth anything in real life

??
What's so bad about that? Plenty of smart ppl go to universety

Because there are too much research and things to study. It is some kind of supply and demand.

You're allowed so I don't see why someone else shouldn't be.

I mean I can tell that your IQ is 83 by your spelling mistakes.